N.M. R. Evid. 11-413
Testimony or evidence compelled under an order of immunity, or any information derived from such testimony or evidence, may not be used against the person compelled to testify or to produce evidence in any criminal case, except
N.M. R. Evid. 11-413
Committee commentary. - This rule, previously numbered Rule 11-412 NMRA, was renumbered in 2012 as Rule 11-413 NMRA, and Rule 11-413 NMRA was renumbered as Rule 11-412 NMRA. The renumbering was adopted because the subject matter of renumbered Rule 11-412 is now consistent with Federal Rule 412, although the rule is substantively different. Changes to the renumbered rule were intended to be stylistic only and not intended to change the rule in any substantive way.
This rule was added in conjunction with adoption of witness immunity rule. See also Rule 5-116 NMRA. The New Mexico rules were derived from the federal statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 6003. There is no comparable federal rule.
For statute and rules on witness immunity, see Section 31-6-15, NMSA 1978, and Rules 5-116 and 10-341 NMRA.
[As amended by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012, rewrote the rule to make stylistic changes. This rule, which was previously numbered as Rule 11-412 NMRA, was renumbered as Rule 11-413 NMRA. Accused's right of confrontation denied. - Where the defendant's sole defense in his rape trial was that the child victim consented to sexual intercourse with him and then fabricated an allegation of rape because her parents, who were opposed to premarital sex because of their deeply religious convictions, had previously punished the victim for engaging in consensual sex with someone else, the defendant was denied his constitutional right of confrontation when the trial court prohibited the defendant from cross-examining the victim and her parents about the victim's prior sexual encounter and the punishment the victim had received from her parents as a result of that encounter and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Stephen F., 2008-NMSC-037, 144 N.M. 360, 188 P.3d 84, aff'g 2007-NMCA-025, 141 N.M. 199, 152 P.3d 842. Prior sexual abuse of a child. - To rebut the natural assumption that a young victim of sexual abuse is sexually naive and could only have learned about it because the victim was victimized by the defendant, the defendant may introduce the fact that the victim had been previously sexually abused to show an alternative source of sexual knowledge. State v. Payton, 2007-NMCA-110, 142 N.M. 385, 165 P.3d 1161, cert. denied, 2007-NMCERT-008. Evidence of prior rape complaints concern past sexual conduct and will pass the initial relevancy test of 30-9-16 NMSA 1978 and this rule if the prior complaints are demonstrably false or unsubstantiated. State v. Johnson, 1984-NMCA-094, 102 N.M. 110, 692 P.2d 35. Evidence of victim's prior sexual conduct and prior rape excluded. - In prosecution for second-degree criminal sexual penetration where theory of defense was that of fabrication of the rape and consensual intercourse, trial properly excluded evidence of prior rape of victim and victim's prior sexual conduct. State v. Fish, 1984-NMSC-056, 101 N.M. 329, 681 P.2d 1106. Evidence of victim's past sexual conduct excluded. - Even though evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct may be admissible to show bias, motive to fabricate or for other purposes consistent with the constitutional right of confrontation, the trial court did not err in rejecting such evidence where defendant failed to show that it was material and relevant, and that its probative value equaled or outweighed its inflammatory nature. State v. Johnson, 1997-NMSC-036, 123 N.M. 640, 944 P.2d 869. Suppression of past sexual encounter of victim and third party. - Trial court acted within its discretion in suppressing evidence of a past sexual encounter of the victim and a third party during which the victim allegedly affixed the ropes found on the bed to restrain the third party in the course of consensual sexual activity, where such evidence was irrelevant to defendant's culpability for the crimes charged, advanced no legitimate defense, excuse, or justification for the crimes charged, and were likely to inject false issues and confuse the jury. State v. Swafford, 1989-NMCA-069, 109 N.M. 132, 782 P.2d 385. In a prosecution for criminal sexual penetration, the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 11-403 NMRA and this rule in prohibiting inquiry into the alleged prior rape of the victim. State v. Hueglin, 2000-NMCA-106, 130 N.M. 54, 16 P.3d 1113. Law reviews. - For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1979-80: Evidence," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 159 (1981). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - Admissibility in prosecution for sex offense of evidence of victim's sexual activity after the offense, 81 A.L.R.4th 1076. Admissibility of evidence that juvenile prosecuting witness in sex offense case had prior sexual experience for purposes of showing alternative source of child's ability to describe sex acts, 83 A.L.R.4th 685. Admissibility in sex offense case, under Rule 412 of Federal Rules of Evidence, of evidence of victim's past sexual behavior, 166 A.L.R. Fed. 639.